4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Białystok, Poland.
5.  In April 1992 the applicant married Mr M.O., a divorcee who had two daughters from his first marriage. In May 1992 the applicant gave birth to a son. On 14 January 1993 the applicant’s husband committed suicide.
6.  On 26 January 1993 the applicant initiated court proceedings before the Białystok District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) in order to obtain a decision as to who should be regarded as heirs to her late husband’s estate. She submitted that the estate should be divided between her and her son, according to the holograph will written by the applicant’s husband on 16 October 1992.
7.  On 5 February 1993 the first hearing was held. The daughters of M.O. joined the proceedings. Their counsel requested that the inheritance be declared according to statute and therefore be in part accorded to them.
8.  During the second hearing, held on 14 April 1993, the deceased’s daughters contested the validity of his will.
9.  The Government submit that between April and August 1993 the applicant asked the court to take evidence from eleven witnesses.
10.  In 1993 the District Court held five hearings and heard eight witnesses. In September and November 1993 two hearings were adjourned because the applicant had to attend a commission for disability and her counsel was ill.
11.  On 18 January, 1 February and 22 February 1994 hearings were held at which both daughters of M.O. requested to hear witnesses living in New York. Subsequently, the applicant applied to the court to hear her father who also lived in New York.
12.  At the hearing held on 8 March 1994 the court allowed the applications to hear witnesses with the help of the Polish Consulate in New York. On 26 September 1994 the court received a deposition taken from the applicant’s father. The witnesses requested by M.O.’s daughters were not heard because they did not arrive at the Consulate.
13.  At the next hearing held on 26 January 1995, upon the application of M.O.’s daughters, the court requested an expert opinion to establish whether the will had been hand-written by M.O.
14.  During the hearing held on 14 September 1995 the court examined the expert opinion which confirmed that the will had been hand-written by M.O. The counsel representing M.O.’s daughters requested another expert opinion to establish the testator’s mental condition at the time of writing the will on the basis of his hand-writing. The applicant contested the necessity for such opinion. Nevertheless, the court granted the application and adjourned the hearing. In November 1995 the Krakow Forensic Medicine Institute informed the court that it was unable to prepare the requested opinion.
15.  At the hearing held on 15 December 1995 the court again decided to request a psychiatric opinion based on M.O.’s hand-writing by another expert. The opinion was submitted to the court in October 1996.
16.  Between 16 December 1995 and 5 December 1996 no hearings were held. Subsequently, the case was taken over by another judge.
17.  On 6 December 1996 a hearing was held. The court decided that an inventory of the estate would be prepared and ordered four expert opinions.
18.  In January 1997 the applicant requested the court to exempt her from the costs of the expert opinions. On 11 March 1997 the court dismissed her application.
19.  On 8 May 1997 the applicant applied to stay the proceedings because another set of civil proceedings between the same parties was pending. On 9 June 1997 she requested the court to resume the proceedings.
20.  In December 1997 and January 1998 both daughters of M.O. were exempted from the costs of the expert opinions. Subsequently, their counsel requested another psychiatric opinion concerning the testator’s mental condition at the time of writing the will.
21.  Between 7 December 1996 and 31 May 1998 no hearings were held.
22.  At the hearing held on 1 June 1998 the court heard four experts and allowed an application for another expert opinion concerning the mental condition of the testator filed by the daughters of M.O.
23.  At the hearing held on 9 July 1998 the court ordered the applicant to apply for the appointment of a guardian for her child. It also set a time-limit for the daughters of M.O. to evaluate one of the objects belonging to the estate and allowed their application to hear an expert.
24.  Subsequently, the applicant requested the Court not to schedule any hearings for August 1998 and M.O.’s daughters lodged similar application concerning a period between 2 and 22 October 1998.
25.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 24 November 1998 and 14 January 1999. At each of those hearings the counsel representing M.O.’s daughters made applications for the obtaining of new evidence.
26.  At the hearing held on 18 March 1999 their counsel again requested that evidence be taken from witnesses who lived in New York and asked for another expert opinion concerning the deceased’s mental health. The court allowed all requests. The applicant’s representative contested the necessity of adducing new evidence and argued that it would lead to further delays.
27.  In April 1999 the Polish Consulate in New York informed the court that the information requested could be obtained only by means of international judicial assistance. In May 1999 M.O.’s daughters were finally exempted from the costs of new expert opinions and subsequently they applied to the court to have recourse to international judicial assistance. The court granted this request. However, in April 2000 the United States Justice Department refused to proceed with the application for the judicial assistance because the information provided by the District Court was imprecise.
28.  In August 2000 another expert opinion concerning the applicant late husband’s mental health was submitted to the court.
29.  Between April 1999 and September 2000 no hearings were held.
30.  On 10 October 2000 the court held a hearing.
31.  During the hearing held on 17 October 2000 the Białystok District Court gave its decision. It declared that the heirs of the applicant’s husband were, according to statute, the applicant, her son and M.O.’s two daughters. In addition, the court established that the will was valid but it did not cover the whole of the estate.
32.  The applicant appealed against this decision to the Białystok Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
33.  The Białystok Regional Court held one hearing. On 20 February 2001 it dismissed the appeal.